search

alex-s-gardner / GEMB

A 1D column that simulates snow/firn/ice processes and surface-atmosphere mass and energy exchanges
Apache License 2.0
5 stars 2 forks source link

Ambiguous references in turbulentFlux #18

Closed chadagreene closed 3 months ago

chadagreene commented 3 months ago

The turbulentFlux function references Bougamont 2006, but the Gardner et al. 2023 paper references only the following two Bougamont papers:

Bougamont, M. and Bamber, J. L.: A surface mass balance model for the Greenland Ice Sheet, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth Surf., 110, F04018, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JF000348, 2005. 

Bougamont, M., Bamber, J. L., Ridley, J. K., Gladstone, R. M., Greuell, W., Hanna, E., Payne, A. J., and Rutt, I.: Impact of model physics on estimating the surface mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L17501, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030700, 2007. 

The function also references Patterson 1998, which I can't find references for in Gardner 2023 or Gardner 2010.

And there's a reference to Wright 1997, but both of the Wright papers referenced in Gardner 2023 are from the 2000's.

There's also a reference to Dingman 2002, which I can't find anywhere.

@alex-s-gardner Can you provide some clarity about which references should be cited for the formulations in turbulentFlux? I'd like to make sure they're cited properly in the function header and documentation.

alex-s-gardner commented 3 months ago

@NJSchlegel did some work on the turbulent fluxes so she might have a better lock on the latest version

NJSchlegel commented 3 months ago

I am confused. I thought I deleted the turbulentFlux function (i..e the turbulentFlux file). It is not called anymore.

NJSchlegel commented 3 months ago

Also, I don't know what Bougamont 2006 is. I suspect that it is actually one of the other Bougamont papers that we ended up referencing in the GEMB manuscript. I never found the Wright or Dingman paper myself either. I would stick to the references in the thermo.m function since that is where turbulent flux now comes from and I tried to update the references the comments (though I know you still want to work on fleshing that switch statement out).

chadagreene commented 3 months ago

Well if we're deleting turbulentFlux.m, then figuring out the references is moot. Shall I delete turbulentFlux.m?

NJSchlegel commented 3 months ago

I personally don't see the point of having it. I think turbulent flux should be calculated directly in the thermo loop. @alex-s-gardner should weigh in though.

alex-s-gardner commented 3 months ago

If turbulentFlux.m is no longer called then it should be deleted